Stupid campaigns against bike-helmets

In a Twit­ter-com­ment to a discus­si­uon on bike-hel­met laws, i wro­te:

More peop­le dies from inac­ti­vity than from not using hel­mets. But the hel­met saved my head.”

It sums up my opi­nion on bike-hel­met laws: Use of hel­mets should not be com­pulsory, but I recom­mend the use of hel­met. I am using hel­met most of the time when I am riding my bike.

To my sur­pir­se I got rat­her insul­ting replies from Amster­da­mized and Copen­ha­ge­nize, orga­ni­sa­tions that sup­port cycling.  As a reply to my twe­et, Amster­da­mized wro­te:

sor­ry, no it did­n’t. Phy­sics make that impos­sib­le. Rese­arch.”

They are refe­ring to “rese­arch”, but they are still able to make a defi­ni­ti­ve con­clu­sion about my acci­dent, wit­hout any know­led­ge of what hap­pe­ned. One can­not take peop­le who are refer­ring to “rese­arch” serious­ly when they can make unsub­sta­ti­a­ted state­ments like this. My reply was:

The hel­met was damaged, the head insi­de was not. Enough for me.”

Copen­ha­ge­nize added insult by wri­ting:

Did you see the face of jesus in the clouds, too? ”

Con­ti­nue read­ing Stu­pid cam­paigns against bike-hel­mets